In December 2022, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) sparked an online firestorm during a House debate over the Puerto Rico Status Act—a contentious bill that could pave the way for Puerto Rican statehood. Ocasio-Cortez, in a move that some considered symbolic and others saw as an attempt at virtue signaling, chose to speak Spanish on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, making a line in the language a focal point of her remarks.
The Puerto Rico Status Act, which has since faded from the public spotlight, was met with strong partisan division. Supporters argued that it would allow Puerto Ricans to decide their own future, while opponents feared it was a Trojan horse for statehood, which would likely result in two more Democratic senators and additional Democratic House seats. The bill passed the House by a 233-191 vote, with 16 Republicans siding with Democrats.
Ocasio-Cortez’s comments on the floor began with her expressing solidarity with “colonized people,” focusing on Puerto Rico’s long-standing status as a U.S. territory. “While Puerto Rico is not the United States’s only colony, it is the oldest,” she declared. She went on to promote the bill as a historic moment, highlighting the potential for Puerto Ricans to choose their own future, including the possibility of independence or free association with the U.S.
However, it wasn’t until Ocasio-Cortez veered into a decolonization rant that things took a more controversial turn. “Decolonization is more than a vote. It doesn’t happen just with a vote,” she argued, as she rambled on about social, cultural, and economic processes that go beyond legislative action.
The drama escalated when Ocasio-Cortez ended her remarks with a rallying cry in Spanish: “Yo soy Boricua, pa’que tu lo sepas,” which translates to “I am Puerto Rican, so that you know.” This line, popularized by Puerto Rican rapper Taíno in 1995, is a symbolic phrase used by many Puerto Ricans as a declaration of pride in their heritage.
However, this display of linguistic pride wasn’t received as a heartfelt cultural tribute by all. Following her speech, the House requested that Ocasio-Cortez provide a translation of her Spanish phrase. The reaction was swift, with critics slamming the request as a politically correct overreach. One commenter on X (formerly Twitter) quipped, “Not that this wasn’t already easy to translate, but does the congressional records keeper not have a bilingual employee? Why do they need you to be their translator?”
While the request itself may seem trivial, it became a flashpoint for deeper criticisms. Many on the left defended Ocasio-Cortez, accusing her critics of not understanding Puerto Rican culture or attempting to undermine her identity. Others, however, pointed out that the translation request was not out of disrespect but a standard procedural issue—House records are kept in English, and all official statements must be recorded accurately.
In fact, some found the entire episode to be emblematic of Ocasio-Cortez’s broader tendencies toward virtue signaling. “The virtue signaling is strong in this one,” one user wrote, while others expressed frustration over her use of Spanish in a formal U.S. legislative setting. As one commenter observed, “Everything said on the floor of the House is recorded by stenographers, but they are trained only in English. A translation is a must for history.”
Ultimately, this incident was much more than just a language debate—it was a microcosm of the growing cultural divide within the U.S. Congress. Ocasio-Cortez’s decision to speak in Spanish wasn’t just about Puerto Rican pride; it was about making a political statement that divides, rather than unites. Whether intentional or not, the controversy over language reflects a broader trend of identity politics that has increasingly dominated the Left. For many, this episode exemplifies a growing detachment from American traditions and a push for cultural fragmentation.
As the debate over the Puerto Rico Status Act continues to simmer, it’s clear that Ocasio-Cortez’s language choice, far from being a harmless gesture, is a reflection of the Left’s penchant for divisive identity politics—something that will likely continue to define the political landscape in the years to come.
