How to Add a New Star to the American Flag

Last updated 2 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The American flag’s field of 50 stars appears as a static, timeless icon. Yet the flag isn’t a finished work—it’s a living document designed to evolve with the nation it represents.

Each star symbolizes a state, and the process of adding a new one is the final, visible act of a complex constitutional journey.

This journey is rooted in the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article IV, which grants Congress the power to welcome new states into the Union. It’s shaped by more than two centuries of legislative practice and judicial interpretation.

The symbolic form comes from the Flag Act of 1818, which ensures that as the nation grows, its banner reflects that growth in an orderly manner.

The Constitutional Blueprint for a Growing Nation

The power to expand the United States by admitting new states isn’t an implied or assumed authority—it’s explicitly written into the nation’s founding document. This authority isn’t without limits. It’s governed by a foundational principle, developed through both political custom and landmark Supreme Court rulings, that ensures the Union remains a partnership of equals.

The Admissions Clause

The primary authority for national expansion is found in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, often called the Admissions Clause. It states:

“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.”

This clause grants Congress the central and unequivocal power to admit new states. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the debate wasn’t over whether new states should be admitted—westward expansion was already a given—but rather over the conditions of their admission.

A primary concern among delegates from the original eastern states was that their vast western land claims could be carved into new states against their will, diluting their political power. To address this, the Framers included two critical limitations on Congress’s power, protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of existing states:

No New State from an Existing State’s Territory: A new state cannot be created from land currently within an existing state’s jurisdiction unless that state’s legislature gives consent. A movement for New York City to become a separate state could not succeed without approval from the New York State Legislature in Albany.

No Joining of States Without Consent: A new state cannot be formed by combining two or more states, or parts of them, unless the legislatures of all involved states, as well as Congress, agree.

Adjacent to the Admissions Clause is the Territory and Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2), which gives Congress power to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” This clause provides constitutional authority for the federal government to govern territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa, often the first step on the road to potential statehood.

The Equal Footing Doctrine

While the Constitution empowers Congress to admit new states, a critical question arises: are these new states equal partners with the original thirteen, or can Congress admit them with diminished rights and powers?

The answer is governed by the “Equal Footing Doctrine,” a principle holding that all states admitted to the Union possess the same rights, sovereignty, and powers as the original states. Under this doctrine, Congress cannot create a “junior” or “second-class” state subject to special restrictions that don’t apply to others.

The origin of this doctrine is one of the most telling episodes in American federalism’s development. During the Constitutional Convention, a proposal to explicitly state that “new States shall be admitted on the same terms with the original States” was debated and ultimately rejected. Delegates from established eastern states feared that a wave of new, powerful western states would eventually overwhelm their political influence.

Despite this initial rejection, the principle of equality quickly took hold as political custom. Beginning with Tennessee’s admission in 1796, Congress voluntarily included language in each state’s admission act specifying that it entered the Union “on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.”

This congressional custom was transformed into a binding constitutional mandate by the Supreme Court. Two landmark cases were crucial:

Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan (1845) centered on ownership of submerged lands beneath navigable waters in Alabama. The Supreme Court ruled that original states, upon independence, held sovereign title to these lands. Therefore, for Alabama to be admitted on “equal footing,” it must also receive title to its navigable riverbeds and coastlands upon entering the Union. The Court declared that the federal government couldn’t retain these lands as a condition of admission, because doing so would create a union of unequal states, violating the federal system’s very nature.

Coyle v. Smith (1911) arose when Congress included a provision in Oklahoma’s Enabling Act requiring the state to keep its capital at Guthrie until at least 1913. When Oklahoma moved its capital to Oklahoma City in 1910, the move was challenged as violating its admission terms. The Supreme Court sided with Oklahoma, invalidating the congressional condition. Justice Lurton argued that the power to locate its own seat of government is a fundamental sovereign power of a state. Congress couldn’t use the admissions process to extract a “tribute” that would permanently diminish a new state’s political power relative to other states.

Historical Context and Modern Implications

The evolution of the Equal Footing Doctrine reflects a broader shift in understanding of the American Union. The Framers’ initial fears about power dilution gave way to a practical and principled understanding that for the nation to grow cohesively, its new members must be true and equal partners.

This historical tension between regional power and national unity is the direct ancestor of today’s partisan debates over potential new states like Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. The core concern—how a new admission will shift the national balance of power—has remained constant for over 230 years, though its language has evolved from regional (East vs. West) to political (Democrat vs. Republican).

The Path to Statehood

The constitutional framework provides the rules, but the actual process of admitting a state is a legislative and political endeavor. Over the centuries, a traditional, though not exclusive, path has emerged, guiding territories from federally administered lands to full-fledged Union members.

The Traditional Journey

For most of the 37 states admitted after the original thirteen, the journey to statehood has followed a well-established pattern, first outlined by the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, even before the Constitution was ratified.

The typical process involves several key steps:

Territorial Status: The journey often begins with Congress organizing an area as a U.S. territory. Under its authority from the Territory Clause, Congress establishes a form of government, often with an appointed governor and locally elected legislature that gains more autonomy as the territory’s population grows.

Petition for Statehood: As the territory develops and its population increases, residents, through their territorial legislature or popular movements, formally petition Congress for admission to the Union.

The Enabling Act: If Congress agrees, it passes an “Enabling Act.” This crucial legislation formally authorizes the people of the territory to take the final steps toward statehood. The act typically empowers them to convene a constitutional convention to draft a state constitution. Often, Congress will include specific conditions in the Enabling Act that the proposed state must meet, such as provisions for public lands or protection of certain rights.

Constitutional Convention and Ratification: The territory holds a convention where delegates draft a state constitution. This constitution must align with U.S. Constitution principles, including the guarantee of a republican form of government. The proposed constitution is then submitted to the territory’s voters for ratification.

The Admission Act: Once the state constitution is ratified and any other conditions are met, the document is sent to Congress. If Congress approves, it passes a final Admission Act or joint resolution. The President’s signature on this legislation is the final step that officially makes the territory a state.

Alternative Paths

This pathway isn’t the only one. The Constitution provides Congress with flexibility, and history shows several variations. The Republic of Texas was annexed and admitted as a state in 1845 without ever being a U.S. territory. California was formed from unorganized land acquired from Mexico and admitted directly in 1850, bypassing the territorial phase.

Several states, such as Kentucky (from Virginia), Maine (from Massachusetts), and West Virginia (from Virginia during the Civil War), were created from existing states’ territory with the required legislative consent.

A History of the 37 States Added

The story of American expansion is written in the 37 acts of admission passed by Congress since 1791. This table provides a snapshot of this history, illustrating different paths taken by states to join the Union:

Old Glory’s Evolution

When a new state joins the Union, the political and legal map of the United States changes. As a result, so must its most prominent symbol: the national flag. The process of updating the flag is governed by its own specific law and a modern administrative procedure that blends expert design with executive authority.

From Chaos to Order: The Flag Act of 1818

In the nation’s early years, the flag’s design was somewhat confused. The First Flag Resolution of 1777 established the original design of 13 stars and 13 stripes. After Vermont and Kentucky joined the Union, Congress passed a second Flag Act in 1794, which increased both stars and stripes to 15.

This set a problematic precedent. With five more states having joined by 1818 and several more territories petitioning for statehood, it was clear that continually adding stripes would make the flag unwieldy and aesthetically chaotic.

Congress responded with the third and final Flag Act, signed into law by President James Monroe on April 4, 1818. This act provided an elegant and enduring solution that continues to govern the flag’s design today. It established two fundamental principles:

The Stripes are Fixed at 13: The number of horizontal stripes was reverted to and permanently fixed at thirteen, to represent and honor the original colonies.

A Star for Every State, Updated Annually: The act mandated that the “union” (the blue canton) would always feature a number of stars equal to the number of states. Crucially, it specified that when a new state is admitted, its star would be officially added to the flag on the Fourth of July following its admission. This created an orderly, once-a-year update, preventing the need for multiple, confusing flag changes if several states were to join in quick succession.

One detail the 1818 Act notably omitted was the arrangement, or pattern, of the stars in the canton. This omission led to a century of creative diversity, with flag makers producing banners with stars arranged in circles, star-shapes, or various grid patterns. This practice continued until 1912, when President William Howard Taft issued an Executive Order standardizing the star arrangement in six horizontal rows of eight and specifying that each star should have one point directed upward.

Designing a New Constellation: The Modern Process

While the Flag Act of 1818 provides the legal mandate for adding a star, the modern process for determining the new design involves a clear division of labor between an expert military body and the President.

The key institution is the U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry (TIOH), based at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Established in its modern form in 1960, TIOH is the successor to the Heraldic Program Office of the Quartermaster General, which had been responsible for military insignia since 1919.

TIOH is the federal government’s sole authority on heraldic services, responsible for designing everything from military medals and unit flags to the Seal of the President of the United States. When a new state is admitted, TIOH is tasked with researching the flag’s history, analyzing design proposals (including those submitted by the public), and preparing technically sound and historically consistent options for a new star pattern.

However, the Institute of Heraldry only recommends. The final decision rests exclusively with the President, who formalizes the new design by issuing an Executive Order.

Case Study: The 49- and 50-Star Flags (1959-1960)

The last time this process was put into action was with the admission of Alaska (January 3, 1959) and Hawaii (August 21, 1959). The anticipation of the first new states in 47 years generated enormous public excitement and participation.

Massive Public Engagement: The federal government was inundated with suggestions. By the time the final design was chosen, more than 3,000 proposals had been sent in by ordinary citizens, from simple crayon sketches by schoolchildren to professionally sewn flags from adults. This outpouring demonstrated a powerful sense of public ownership over the national symbol.

The Official Process: President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed a committee composed of the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury, along with the Chairman of the Commission on Fine Arts, to review options. The Army’s Heraldic Branch analyzed all public submissions and prepared its own recommendations based on historical precedent, favoring simple, orderly horizontal rows.

The Presidential Decision: President Eisenhower ultimately selected the patterns that would become official. For the 49-star flag, he chose a 7×7 grid with staggered rows, formalized in Executive Order 10798. For the 50-star flag, he selected the now-familiar design of nine staggered rows of alternating five and six stars, established by Executive Order 10834.

A Student’s Legacy: The approved 50-star design was identical to one submitted for a high school history project in 1958 by 17-year-old Robert G. Heft of Ohio. His teacher had initially given him a B- but promised to change the grade to an A if his design was accepted by Congress. After Heft’s flag was championed by his congressman, it was chosen by President Eisenhower, and Heft was invited to Washington, D.C., for the official adoption ceremony on July 4, 1960.

Economic Impact: The back-to-back changes had significant effects on the nation’s flag makers. The short-lived 49-star flag created a business boom, which then collapsed when Hawaii’s admission was announced just months later. One major manufacturer reported losing $150,000 in obsolete inventory. However, the subsequent demand for the new 50-star flag created an even larger boom, with the same company producing two million new flags in a single year.

The modern process for altering the flag isn’t a sterile, top-down bureaucratic exercise. It’s a dynamic interplay between stable law (the 1818 Act), expert administration (the Institute of Heraldry), ultimate executive authority (the President), and vibrant public will.

The Next Star? Contemporary Statehood Movements

For over six decades, the American flag has flown with 50 stars, the longest period without a change in the nation’s history. However, active and persistent movements in both the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico seek to add a 51st state, reigniting debates that touch upon core principles of representation, self-determination, and national identity.

The District of Columbia: The Fight for “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth”

The movement for statehood in Washington, D.C., is rooted in one of the oldest political grievances in American history: the lack of voting representation in the national legislature for its citizens.

Arguments for D.C. Statehood

No Taxation Without Representation: This revolutionary slogan is featured on D.C. license plates. The District’s nearly 700,000 residents pay more in federal taxes per capita than citizens of any state and more in total than 22 states, yet they have no voting members in the Senate or House of Representatives.

Population and Self-Governance: D.C.’s population is larger than that of both Wyoming and Vermont, two fully represented states. While the District has its own mayor and city council under the Home Rule Act, Congress retains authority to review and even overturn its local laws and budget, a power it has used to interfere in local affairs.

Racial Justice: Proponents argue that D.C.’s lack of representation is a critical racial justice issue. Washington, D.C., is a historically Black city and, if admitted, would be the nation’s only plurality-Black state. Advocates contend that denying statehood is a form of voter suppression that disproportionately disenfranchises Black Americans.

Arguments Against D.C. Statehood

The District Clause: The primary constitutional argument against statehood comes from Article I, Section 8, which grants Congress authority to exercise “exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may… become the Seat of the Government of the United States.” Opponents argue that the Framers intended for the national capital to be a neutral federal zone, independent of any single state’s influence, and that statehood would violate this intent.

Statehood bills like H.R. 51 counter this by proposing to shrink the federal district to a small, two-square-mile “National Capital Service Area” encompassing the White House, Capitol, Supreme Court, and National Mall, with surrounding residential areas becoming the new state.

The 23rd Amendment: Ratified in 1961, this amendment grants the “District constituting the seat of Government” three electoral votes in presidential elections. Opponents argue that if residential areas become a state, this amendment would create a constitutional absurdity: the handful of people living in the newly shrunken federal district (such as the President and their family) would control three electoral votes, granting them wildly disproportionate power. Proponents argue this could be resolved by repealing the amendment or through new legislation.

Partisan Politics: A central objection is political. D.C. is overwhelmingly Democratic, and its admission as a state would almost certainly add two Democratic senators and one Democratic representative to Congress. Many Republicans view the statehood push as a partisan “power grab” designed to alter the Senate’s political balance.

Puerto Rico: Statehood, Independence, or Commonwealth?

The political status of Puerto Rico is a deeply complex issue with a long history of debate on the island and in Washington. An unincorporated territory of the U.S. since the Spanish-American War in 1898, its roughly 3.2 million residents are U.S. citizens by birth but cannot vote in presidential elections and have only a single, non-voting Resident Commissioner in the House of Representatives.

A series of non-binding referendums, or plebiscites, on the island’s status have yielded contentious and often inconclusive results, with boycotts and disputes over ballot wording complicating the outcomes.

Arguments for Puerto Rico Statehood

Full Citizenship and Representation: The core argument for statehood is the promise of full and equal democratic rights. As a state, Puerto Ricans would gain voting representation in both houses of Congress and the right to vote for president, ending what many see as “second-class” citizenship where they are subject to federal laws without a voice in making them.

Economic Parity: Statehood would grant Puerto Rico equal access to federal programs, such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), on the same terms as existing states. This would result in billions of dollars in additional annual federal funding, providing a significant boost to the island’s economy and social safety net.

Arguments Against Puerto Rico Statehood

Cultural Identity: A significant portion of the population fears that statehood would lead to erosion of Puerto Rico’s unique Hispanic culture, traditions, and Spanish language. Opponents argue that full assimilation into the U.S. would threaten the island’s national identity, pointing to symbolic losses like the inability to field its own Olympic team.

Economic Burdens: While statehood would bring more federal aid, it would also subject Puerto Rican residents and businesses to federal income tax, from which they are currently largely exempt. Opponents worry this new tax burden could cripple an already fragile economy, drive away corporations that benefit from the island’s tax incentives, and harm middle- and low-income families.

Sovereignty and Decolonization: Some Puerto Ricans argue that statehood isn’t an act of decolonization but rather the final stage of assimilation into a country that has treated the island as a colony. They advocate for full independence or an enhanced “free association” status that would grant Puerto Rico true sovereignty while maintaining a negotiated relationship with the U.S.

Partisan Politics: As with D.C., mainland politics loom large. While Puerto Rico’s political alignment is less certain than D.C.’s, the potential for it to elect Democratic members of Congress leads to opposition from some Republicans who fear a shift in the national balance of power.

These modern statehood movements reveal that the process of adding a star to the flag is far more than a legislative or design exercise. It serves as a national forum for the country’s most pressing and unresolved debates—on racial justice, the legacy of colonialism, and the deep divisions of political polarization.

The arguments are rarely confined to the legal mechanics of Article IV but instead tap into broader questions about American identity and the nation’s political future. The flag, in this context, becomes a symbol not just of the union that exists, but of the competing visions for the union that is yet to be.

Imagining a 51-Star Flag

Should a 51st state be admitted, the final step would be redesigning the flag’s canton. This prospect has sparked considerable speculation and creativity among vexillologists (flag enthusiasts) and the public.

It’s crucial to note that, despite the commercial availability of 51-star flags, there is no official design. The U.S. Army Institute of Heraldry has explicitly stated that it has not selected or endorsed any future pattern. The formal design process would only begin after a new state is officially admitted to the Union.

Nevertheless, several popular unofficial designs have emerged:

Staggered Rows: The most common proposals maintain the current aesthetic of staggered horizontal rows. A frequent suggestion is a pattern of six alternating rows of nine and eight stars (9-8-9-8-9-8). This design is subtle, and at a glance, many might not notice the change from the current 50-star pattern, preserving the flag’s iconic look.

Circular or Concentric Rings: Another popular concept, often promoted by the Puerto Rican statehood movement, arranges the stars in a circle or series of concentric rings around a central star. One such design features a central star, a ring of five, a ring of ten, a ring of fifteen, and an outer ring of twenty. This pattern harks back to some of the earliest American flag designs, such as the one popularly attributed to Betsy Ross, and symbolizes unity and perpetuity.

The debate over a potential 51st star reflects the ongoing vitality of American democracy. Whether that star will eventually appear depends on the political will of Congress, the desires of the residents of potential new states, and the broader national conversation about representation, equality, and the meaning of American citizenship.

The flag has evolved 26 times since 1777, each change marking a moment of national growth and transformation. Should the next change come, it will be the culmination of the same constitutional process that has guided American expansion for more than two centuries—a process that balances federal authority with state sovereignty, expert judgment with popular participation, and the preservation of tradition with the demands of a growing nation.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.