Hawai‘i’s relationship with the United States is unlike that of any other state. While every territory that eventually became part of the U.S. experienced some form of political transition, Hawai‘i’s annexation was marked by international controversy, an illegal overthrow of a sovereign monarchy, and longstanding debates about self-determination. For many Native Hawaiians and sovereignty activists, Hawai‘i is not just another U.S. state—it is a nation under occupation, a “prisoner of war” held by a foreign power.
The fight for Hawaiian sovereignty is deeply tied to the islands’ unique history, cultural identity, and economic realities. Although statehood was formally established in 1959, many Native Hawaiians reject the legitimacy of U.S. rule, arguing that the islands were annexed through an unlawful process that disregarded their right to self-governance. The movement for independence—or at the very least, greater autonomy—remains an active and highly charged issue.
This chapter explores Hawai‘i’s contested political status, the history of its annexation, and the contemporary sovereignty movement. We examine legal debates, international perspectives, and the challenges of achieving self-determination in the modern geopolitical landscape.
Before its annexation, Hawai‘i was an independent kingdom with a rich history of political and cultural development. The islands were unified in 1810 under King Kamehameha I, who established a monarchy that maintained diplomatic relations with foreign powers, including the United States, Britain, and Japan. The Kingdom of Hawai‘i developed a constitutional government, established trade agreements, and was internationally recognized as a sovereign nation.
However, economic and political pressures from foreign interests—particularly American and European plantation owners—gradually eroded Hawaiian sovereignty. By the late 19th century, the sugar industry had become the dominant economic force in the islands, and wealthy American businessmen sought to expand their influence over Hawaiian governance.
On January 17, 1893, a group of American and European businessmen, backed by the U.S. military, staged a coup against Queen Liliʻuokalani, the reigning monarch of Hawai‘i. The queen had attempted to restore the monarchy’s authority through a new constitution, but powerful economic interests feared losing control over their lucrative businesses. With the support of the U.S. minister to Hawai‘i and a detachment of U.S. Marines, the coup leaders declared a provisional government and sought annexation by the United States.
Queen Liliʻuokalani protested the overthrow, submitting multiple appeals to the U.S. government and calling for the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom. President Grover Cleveland initially condemned the coup, calling it an illegal act of aggression, but political pressure and shifting U.S. priorities prevented any meaningful intervention. By 1898, under President William McKinley, Hawai‘i was officially annexed through a congressional resolution rather than a formal treaty—an unprecedented move that remains controversial.
In 1993, the U.S. Congress passed the Apology Resolution (Public Law 103-150), which formally acknowledged the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and expressed regret for the role the United States played in the event. Signed into law by President Bill Clinton, the resolution recognized that Native Hawaiians had never relinquished their claims to sovereignty through a legal process.
Despite this acknowledgment, the Apology Resolution did not grant Hawai‘i any political or legal means to pursue self-determination. Sovereignty activists, however, view it as a significant piece of evidence in the legal argument that the U.S. occupation of Hawai‘i is illegitimate under international law.
Sovereignty movements in Hawai‘i take different forms, ranging from full independence advocates to those who seek federal recognition similar to Native American tribes. Some groups, such as the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, argue that Hawai‘i remains a sovereign nation under illegal occupation and seek international support for de-occupation. Others, like the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), work within the U.S. system to secure greater rights and resources for Native Hawaiians.
A significant development in the movement occurred in 2016 when the U.S. Department of the Interior proposed a rule that would allow Native Hawaiians to form a federally recognized government, similar to tribal nations on the mainland. However, the proposal was met with mixed reactions. Some viewed it as a step toward self-determination, while others saw it as an attempt to pacify the independence movement without addressing the underlying issue of sovereignty.
Hawaiian independence activists have sought support from the international community, arguing that the annexation of Hawai‘i violates the principles of self-determination established by the United Nations. Some activists have petitioned the UN to recognize Hawai‘i as a territory eligible for decolonization, similar to Puerto Rico and other non-self-governing territories.
While no major international body has formally recognized Hawai‘i as an occupied nation, sovereignty groups continue to push for diplomatic recognition. The argument hinges on the fact that, unlike other U.S. territories, Hawai‘i was an internationally recognized kingdom before its annexation. This historical distinction gives the independence movement a unique legal foundation compared to other state-based secession movements in the United States.
While sovereignty activists focus on legal and historical arguments, any path toward Hawaiian independence would also need to address economic and political realities. Hawai‘i has a highly developed economy that relies heavily on tourism, military spending, and imports. An independent Hawai‘i would need to establish trade agreements, create its own military or security force, and develop a sustainable economic model that reduces dependency on external resources.
Additionally, the presence of major U.S. military bases—including Pearl Harbor—complicates the question of independence. The U.S. would likely resist any effort that jeopardizes its strategic interests in the Pacific, particularly given growing tensions with China in the region.
Beyond full independence, many Native Hawaiians advocate for greater self-governance and land rights within the existing U.S. framework. The Hawaiian Homelands program, established in 1921, was intended to provide land for Native Hawaiians, but bureaucratic hurdles and mismanagement have limited its effectiveness. Expanding land and resource rights for Native Hawaiians remains a key issue in the broader fight for sovereignty.
Some activists also push for the return of lands that were once under the control of the Hawaiian Kingdom, arguing that they were illegally seized by the U.S. government. These demands often intersect with broader Indigenous rights movements, drawing parallels to land disputes involving Native American tribes on the mainland.
Hawai‘i’s status within the United States remains one of the most contested issues of American governance. The history of its annexation, coupled with ongoing sovereignty movements, ensures that the debate over self-determination is far from over. While full independence faces significant political and economic hurdles, the fight for Native Hawaiian self-governance and land rights continues to gain momentum.
The question remains: Is Hawai‘i a willing part of the United States, or is it a nation under occupation? While perspectives vary, the legacy of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the resilience of the sovereignty movement ensure that this issue will remain a critical part of Hawai‘i’s future.