Fox News Host Makes Bold Lunar Claim While Defending Trump's Greenland Push
Fox News commentator Jesse Watters sparked controversy this week by declaring that the United States "owns" the moon while vigorously defending former President Donald Trump's aggressive efforts to annex Greenland. The remarks came during a heated panel discussion on "The Five" where Watters made sweeping claims about American territorial acquisitions throughout history.
Historical Precedents and Lunar Assertions
During the broadcast, Watters presented what he characterized as historical evidence for American expansionism. "The United States always secures her interests, economically, militarily, either by force or purchase," Watters asserted. "Louisiana Purchase. Alaska. The Philippines. We even got the Marshall Islands after World War II. You don't even know where they are, Greg. We got the moon. I think we own it."
When fellow panelists responded with laughter and skepticism, Watters doubled down on his position with unwavering conviction. "I know we own it," he insisted, maintaining a completely serious demeanor throughout the exchange.
International Treaty Obligations and Space Law
Despite Watters' confident assertions, international space law directly contradicts his claims about lunar ownership. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, formally known as the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies," establishes clear prohibitions against national appropriation of celestial bodies.
The landmark treaty contains several key provisions that directly address Watters' statements:
- Outer space exploration must benefit all countries and represents the province of all humanity
- Outer space remains free for exploration and use by all nations
- No national sovereignty claims can be made through use, occupation, or any other means
- The moon and other celestial bodies must be used exclusively for peaceful purposes
While American astronauts have planted flags on the lunar surface during Apollo missions, these symbolic acts do not constitute territorial claims under international law.
Greenland Ambitions and NATO Tensions
Watters extended his defense of American expansionism to Trump's controversial push to acquire Greenland, despite significant diplomatic backlash from NATO allies including Denmark, which governs the semi-autonomous territory. The Fox host echoed Trump's strategic arguments about countering Chinese and Russian influence in the Arctic region.
"We have to protect our own supply lines, we have to protect ourselves from missiles coming in from China, and we're going to do it whether they like it or not," Watters declared. "Denmark should take the offer. Denmark cannot defend or develop the island, and they're in violation of their NATO obligations because they are sworn to defend all of their territory, and they cannot defend it."
Trump's approach to the Greenland situation has included economic pressure tactics, with recent tariff threats against European nations that haven't aligned with his territorial ambitions. These actions have continued to strain relationships within the NATO alliance, despite Trump's recent statements in Switzerland ruling out military force.
Broader Context and Political Commentary
The lunar ownership comments represent just the latest in a series of provocative statements from Watters regarding international relations and American foreign policy. Last week, the commentator employed unusual familial language when discussing NATO dynamics, asking "Why won't they give Daddy what he wants?" in reference to Trump's demands from alliance members.
These remarks highlight ongoing debates about:
- The interpretation and enforcement of international space treaties
- The future of American foreign policy under potential future Trump administrations
- NATO alliance cohesion in the face of unilateral actions
- Media commentary's role in shaping public understanding of complex international issues
While Watters presented his lunar ownership claim with apparent seriousness, the statement conflicts with established international law and represents a significant departure from conventional understanding of space governance. The comments have sparked discussions about media responsibility in accurately representing legal frameworks governing global commons like outer space.
