The Covenant Is Not the Problem. Our Follow-Through Is. | Opinion

By Johnny Tudela Aldan, Jr.

I am not a legal expert. I am simply someone who understands the vision my grandparents’ generation had when they helped shape the Covenant into what we live under today. I grew up appreciating the protections they negotiated so Chamorros, Carolinians, and the larger community could move forward on our own terms. Because of that, I feel a responsibility to be honest about where we, as a community and a government, are falling short.

More and more, the Covenant is spoken of as if it were outdated or too fragile for today’s challenges. It often becomes the focus of review only when the economy falters, as though our financial troubles began with the Covenant. In doing so, we forget that the Covenant was never meant to stand apart from us. It was built on the understanding that the people, the land, and our political destiny are inseparable. When one is weakened, all are at risk. For that reason, the Covenant must be defended and deserves every form of protection. It anchors our relationship with the United States, protects local self-government, and safeguards land for people of Northern Marianas descent (NMD). But it was never meant to function only as a political shield. It was meant to be the foundation for long-term economic strength. So why is it that we defend it at times, but so often question its purpose as our circumstances change?

On Dec. 5, 2025, calls to review the Covenant were raised in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) House of Representatives. Representative Angelo A. Camacho argued that changing economic conditions and shifting community needs require a fresh look at the Covenant. He emphasized that such a review would not be about breaking our relationship with the United States, but about strengthening it. I appreciate Rep. Camacho and the work of the Legislature in taking our future seriously and being willing to ask difficult questions.

At the same time, we must be careful not to fall into the habit of trying to fix what is not broken.

The deeper issue facing the CNMI today is not that the Covenant has failed us or needs updating. The real problem is that we have not been creative or disciplined enough in using what we inherited from our grandparents’ generation. Locals selling their land, entering long-term leases, or leaving the islands in search of opportunity never to return is not what our grandparents envisioned. They believed in building local capacity through training, investing in our people through education, and using creative strategy to fill the most critical gaps in our islands so that our young people would remain or return home to help further build our communities. These are precisely the areas where we continue to fall short. Instead of immediately looking to revise the Covenant itself, we should first ask whether we have truly exhausted the power, flexibility, and protection it already gives us. Like Article 12, which ensures Northern Mariana Islands land remains in NMD hands, and that alone sets the CNMI apart from many places in the Pacific. But land protection was meant to be the starting point, not the finish line. Today, land is still treated as a short-term revenue tool instead of a strategic asset for housing, food security, and locally owned enterprise. We lease land without building real industries. We approve projects without anchoring long term community wealth. Yes, we protect ownership, but we do not build the strong local capital or infrastructure needed to support it.

At the same time, the CNMI still relies heavily on federal funding, mostly to survive from one crisis to the next. We use grants to fill budget gaps and recover from disasters rather than to systematically build food systems, energy security, water security, modern infrastructure, and true export industries. Our continued dependence on low-wage tourism keeps us locked in a cycle of emergencies instead of long-term growth.

The Covenant has never failed us. What has failed us is our lack of creative and disciplined governance. The Covenant still gives us powerful tools. What it does not give us is long-range planning or protection from our own short-term decision-making. That responsibility belongs to our leaders to use the tools the Covenant gives us, to do real research, understand the real needs of our community, and co-produce innovative solutions with the people they serve.

If the Legislature is serious about securing the future of the CNMI, a few priorities must become non-negotiable now. Land policy must continue moving away from politically driven leasing and toward a transparent, long-term land-use strategy that prioritizes housing, food-producing agriculture, and locally owned small businesses alongside responsible development. The CNMI must finally build local financial institutions, such as a development bank or land-backed lending system, so our own people can invest in our future instead of depending on outside capital. Federal funding must be organized into a true long-term development strategy for food security, energy security, water security, and infrastructure, not treated as emergency money. And the Commonwealth must commit to real economic diversification beyond low-wage tourism so young NMDs can build stable lives here at home.

Reviewing the Covenant may one day be part of our evolution. But our greatest challenge right now is not rewriting the document our elders fought for. It is finally honoring it with stronger governance, creative economic thinking, and long-term discipline. The Covenant did not fail the CNMI. We failed to rise to the full responsibility it placed in our hands. The work ahead is about accountability, about matching action to vision, and about upholding the promise our elders secured for us over the past 50 years.

Johnny Tudela Aldan, MPH is an epidemiologist and doctoral student born and raised in Saipan. He is currently based in Hawaiʻi. His current work focuses on community-centered public health, disease surveillance, and strengthening health data systems in Pacific Island communities. His research interests include maternal and child health, infectious diseases, and the health impacts of environmental pollutants in Pacific Island populations. He is also a strong advocate for resource policy rooted in Indigenous approaches to environmental stewardship. His earlier research experience includes environmental toxicology and immunology, with peer-reviewed work examining lipid metabolism, mast cell activation, and inflammatory signaling. Across both research and applied public health, his work centers on connecting science, policy, and community needs to improve long-term health and resilience at home.