From a promise to buy Greenland to his threat to ‘take back’ the Panama Canal, Donald Trump seems to have his sights set on expanding US territory across the world.
But during his inauguration speech, Trump also vowed to carry the American flag in a bold new direction.
Trump claimed that it was America’s ‘manifest destiny’ to ‘plant the stars and stripes on the planet Mars.’
So, could Mars really become the 51st state?
Unfortunately for Trump, international law is absolutely clear on the matter.
According to the most basic laws governing how nations work in outer space, trying to claim Mars as US territory is illegal.
Likewise, these same laws mean that any contracts to ‘buy’ plots of land on the moon or Mars are nothing more than shallow scams.
However, that doesn’t mean that Trump’s dream of a US colony on the Red Planet is over before it starts.
As President Donald Trump considers plans for an American colony on Mars, experts reveal whether anyone can really own the Red Planet
Donald Trump has claimed that it is America’s ‘manifest destiny’ to plant the American flag on Mars as he promises to make the US a country which ‘expands its territory’
Could Mars become US territory?
In his first address as President of the United States, Trump called on America to become a ‘growing nation’.
In his view that means becoming a country which ‘increases our wealth, expands our territory, builds our cities, raises our expectations, and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons.’
Trump then added: ‘And we will pursue our manifest destiny into the stars, launching American astronauts to plant the Stars and Stripes on the planet Mars.’
Due to Trump’s recent alliance with the Mars-obsessed billionaire and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, many have taken this to mean that America will try to claim parts of the Red Planet as US territory.
However, making a territorial claim over another planet is not as simple as being the first to plant a flag.
Dr Jill Stuart, an expert on the law of space exploration from the LSE, told MailOnline: ‘The moon already has many different flags on it: Six from the United States alone, but also those of other countries such as Japan, China, and the EU.
‘This does not imply ownership but is more of a symbol of achievement – think of the flags that are brought to the top of Mount Everest.’
With the support of SpaceX founder Elon Musk, Trump has laid out an ambitious plan to reach Mars before the end of his four-year term. However, experts say that simply planting a flag on Mars (as mimed here by Mr Musk) isn’t enough to claim territory
To make a territorial claim to a region on Earth, countries need to have an established physical presence, the ability to control the territory, and the capacity to make laws that apply to the territory and the people living there.
Elon Musk has frequently suggested that humans might establish a colony on Mars as early as 2028 which would constitute an established physical presence.
If those colonists were under the control of US law, it might seem like America could meet the criteria necessary to start claiming parts of the planet as their own.
Why Mars can’t become part of the US
Even if Trump can get a functional colony on Mars up and running, the US will have no more right to claim Martian territory than it does now.
That is because space and Earth are governed by a completely different set of rules.
In 1967, a group of space-faring nations including the US and Russia signed the Outer Space Treaty in an effort to quash the tension surrounding space exploration.
In addition to banning nuclear weapons in space and obliging astronauts to help those from other nations, this treaty also laid out the rules for property in space.
The United Nation’s Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space created the Outer Space Treaty in 1967 to prevent Russia and America from taking their conflict into space and ensure that no one had the upper hand
In particular, Article 2 of the treaty states: ‘Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.’
And despite Trump’s comments about expanding US territory, the treaty’s interpretation is pretty indisputable.
Sa’id Mosteshar, professor of law at the University of London and director of the London Institute of Space Policy, told MailOnline: ‘All States agree that at the very least this prohibits any territorial claims over, or extension of jurisdiction to celestial bodies, including Mars.
‘Therefore any territorial claims to Mars by the US is illegal under international law and will not be recognised by other States.’
This principle is so essential to the entire structure of international law for space that challenging it could have dire consequences.
Dr Fabio Tronchetti, associate professor of law at Northumbria University, told MailOnline: ‘This is a fundamental principle that applies to all major spacefaring countries.
‘To make a territorial claim over Mars, that country would have to breach international law. That would eventually mean countries will withdraw from the treaty which would be the collapse of the whole system.’
So, as long as Trump plans to respect international law and avoid destroying the governing principle of cooperation in space, Mars isn’t going to become part of the US.
The Outer Space Treaty specifically forbids any nation from claiming a celestial body like Mars as part of its sovereign territory. Any attempt to make a territorial claim would be illegal (file photo)
Jared Isaacman, who has been picked by Trump to be the next NASA administrator, has voiced his support for a colony on Mars. But even building this colony would not count as making a territorial claim under international law
Could SpaceX claim part of Mars?
Of course, it is no longer just countries which are making their way into space.
Now, private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin are some of the biggest players in space exploration.
If you imagine a mining company on Earth, it doesn’t need to claim that the area it exploits is national territory to extract the minerals and prevent anyone else from entering.
Likewise, some people believe that a private company might be able to operate in the same way on Mars.
When the Outer Space Treaty was written, the idea that a private company would be able to go to space was pretty much unheard of.
For this reason, the treaty’s rules of exploiting space’s resources only specifically refer to states.
That has led some individuals to conclude that there is a loophole in the law, allowing private citizens and companies free reign to claim parts of space as their own.
Since the Outer Space Treaty does not specifically refer to private companies, it has sometimes been assumed that individuals and corporations like Elon Musk and SpaceX might be able to own parts of space. Pictured: Elon Musk and Donald Trump attend a SpaceX Starship test flight
In 1980 a former ventriloquist and car salesman named Dennis Hope sent a letter to the United Nations claiming the moon and planets in the solar system as his own.
Since then, it is believed that Mr Hope has made about $10 million (£6 million) auctioning off parcels of land on the moon with what he calls ‘lunar deeds’.
However, Mr Hope’s offer isn’t quite the brilliant investment offer it sounds like.
To be able to own something, those property rights need to have the possibility of being upheld in a court.
But since the moon, Mars and everything in space are outside the jurisdiction of any court, Mr Hope’s lunar deeds cannot possibly be upheld.
Likewise, even if SpaceX did want to buy or claim part of Mars for itself there’s simply no way of enforcing the claim in court.
Yet the biggest issue is that the Outer Space Treaty does actually contain rules for how private companies are expected to operate in space.
Dr Tronchetti says: ‘The status of states and companies under international space law is different in the sense that a company needs to be authorised through a licence to undertake what they want to do in space.’
Dennis Hope (pictured), a former car salesperson, claimed that he had found a loophole in the OST and declared himself owner of the moon. It is widely agreed that his claims are not valid
The activities of any company in space have to be licenced by a country and it is that state which ultimately bears responsibility for their actions. That includes the launch of rockets like SpaceX’s Starship and Superheavy boosters (pictured) and any landings on celestial bodies
Article Six of the Outer Space Treaty means that it will still be the US government which calls the shots on Mars and decides how its citizens are allowed to use it.
That means a lunar deed is worth no more than the paper it is printed on unless the Government approves your plans.
Why Mars is still up for grabs
While the Outer Space Treaty paints a fairly harmonious picture of space exploration, the reality isn’t quite so rosy.
The conduct of companies like SpaceX should be governed by their country of origin which, in theory, prevents space from being exploited or polluted.
But when countries are too permissive or companies too powerful, the law effectively creates a smokescreen for all sorts of questionable activity.
‘When the licence is given, everything falls back on the state, so it’s kind of a free pass for the company,’ says Dr Tronchetti.
‘For a company like SpaceX, they are too powerful now and it’s getting harder and harder to tell them no.’
In practice, the Red Planet might still be up for grabs since the Outer Space Treaty does not forbid states and their licenced companies from using planets to support exploration
That means if Elon Musk decides to start using chunks of Mars for his own purposes, there isn’t really much anyone can do about it.
Likewise, countries like China and America now seem ready to grab parts of space regardless of what the Outer Space Treaty says.
Dr Tronchetti says: ‘To be honest with you, he [Trump] knows little of what he’s talking about.
‘Nobody is making any claims of territorial appropriation, you’re just making a claim of your right to use part of Mars or the moon.’
Article One of the Outer Space Treaty states: ‘Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind’.
But the word ‘use’ is so ambiguous that states are able to justify a wide range of activities in space.
As long as a nation doesn’t claim to own the area, the law permits them to build a base, mine the resources they find there, and use them to support a colony.
By stretching that interpretation even further, it is possible to justify activities like commercial mining for profit on the grounds that this still counts as ‘use’.
Under international law, it is still legal to establish a base on Mars, mine the resources found there and use them to support a colony. The only thing a country cannot do is claim that area as its sovereign territory. Pictured: A SpaceX concept for a Mars base
Furthermore, as Dr Tronchetti points out, the law also requires that exploration be undertaken in a way that doesn’t hinder or affect any other nation.
He says: ‘A country that gets there first might have a right to say: “You should not establish a base where we are now because that would interfere with our activities”‘.
In recent years, America has doubled down on that interpretation of the law by passing a series of rules called the Artemis Accords in 2020.
These rules declare that: ‘Space resource extraction and utilization can and will be conducted.’
Critically, the Artemis Accords also gives states the power to implement ‘safety zones’ – exclusive areas which members of other states will not be able to enter or use without permission from the owner.
While the US insists that these boundaries will end ‘when the relevant operation ceases’, for a permanent colony this would function almost exactly like the borders of a sovereign territory.
So, without ever needing to make a claim about sovereignty or territory, states can get pretty much everything that those rights would offer in reality.
So, Mars might end up belonging to whoever gets there first.
Since the rules defining ‘use’ are vague, Mars might fall into the control of whoever can establish a base there first. Pictured: The view of Mars from America’s Perseverance rover
This chart shows possible sites for mining on the moon’s South Pole. Locations of water are shown in blue while key locations for helium and rare earth metals are numbered. Both China and the US are trying to land in this area, meaning that conflict over resources is possible
Why are the experts concerned?
What makes this situation so troubling for space law experts is that it leaves a significant grey area which states will need to navigate.
While disputes about space bases once seemed purely hypothetical, the world is rapidly approaching a point where real problems might arise.
Both the US with the Artemis program and the Chinese Space Program are targeting the same region of the moon’s south pole to access the frozen water found there.
Dr Stuart says: ‘The timeline for sending humans to Mars is very far in the future—certainly well beyond the term of the Trump administration.
‘We will have bases on the moon well before there are settlements on Mars, and it is these lunar bases and legal discussions within the international community that will determine how future settlements are governed.’
But if both countries try to claim the same piece of land, there is nothing in international law which determines how that conflict is supposed to be resolved.
Those gaps in the letter of the law create space for groups of countries to make their own rules.
Dr Tronchetti describes this process as the ‘splitting’ of space law.
This means big questions like ‘who owns Mars?’ are increasingly up to countries to answer for themselves.
Meanwhile, there still isn’t any clear way of settling what happens when those answers don’t agree.
He adds: ‘If you have different groups of countries operating under different rules, this is the seed for conflict, or at least for disagreement and tension.’
